Hi,

On 2026-02-16T15:20:49+0100, наб wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 01:32:29AM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > On 2026-02-15T20:00:50+0100, наб wrote:
> > > +struct futex_waitv {
> > > +    u64 val;        /* Expected value at \f[I]uaddr\f[] */
> > Should we say at .uaddr[0] to be more precise?
> I think in general it's between "of *pointer" or "at pointer",
> and "Expected value of .uaddr[0]/*.uaddr" read really poorly to me.
> 
> > > +This operation tests that the values at the
> > > +futex words pointed to by the addresses
> > > +.IR waiters []. uaddr
> > 
> > Should we maybe say?:
> > 
> > 	futex words
> > 	.IR waiters []. uaddr [0]
> 
> It does read unwieldy, but I think that's too cut-down...
> 
> 	futex words at
> 	.IR waiters []. uaddr

I prefer "futex words pointed to by the addresses" over "futex words at".
My point was that the explicit [0] might be more readable.

> 
> 
> > > +If the NUMA word is
> > > +.BR FUTEX_NO_NODE ,
> > > +the node number of the processor the syscall executes on is written to it.
> > > +(Except in an
> > Maybe 'Except that' would be easier to read?
> I don't think that works, but maybe "Except for an"...

Sorry; I didn't explain myself well.  I meant 'Except that in an'.

> 
> Scissor-patch below.
> 
> Best,
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH v11] futex_waitv.2: new page
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ahelenia Ziemiańska <nabijaczleweli@nabijaczleweli.xyz>
> ---
> Range-diff against v10:
> 1:  267b3c008 ! 1:  39abafa84 futex_waitv.2: new page
[...]
>     @@ man/man2/futex_waitv.2 (new)
>      +If the NUMA word is
>      +.BR FUTEX_NO_NODE ,
>      +the node number of the processor the syscall executes on is written to it.
>     -+(Except in an
>     ++(Except for an

I would still insert the omitted 'that' here.  I have no preference
regarding 'for' vs 'in'.

>      +.B EINVAL
>      +or
>      +.B EFAULT
[...]


Have a lovely day!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>